--

policy )uplcs to thc j keep

nc\: or rial ion lh \\ ~ .1,. ....

rl'~lil,\l

rg:lrIen ling nn ; report nd that :ouples d sam\: 1a\ day­

)s. thus ltracted e-based families parents

lecomes . a sick­ompany k child's

. Zayre \\-ark at s enable 'hemical

t of time

liar vaca­time off

ler to the

company

lr boon to

was first Is say that

Chapter 14 ('"reer I'hl'lIlill!/. '1/Ic1/kn'lol'lI1"II/ 467

the program has reduced turnover and ahsenteeism. boosted morale. and helped achieve alTirmative action objectives. However, job sharing can be difficult to implement; the pro­gram requires that a job be divided into t\\'o related but separate assignments. that the job sharers are compatihle. and that the supervisor can provide task continuity between them.

I. What are the advantages and potential liabilities of hiring two-career couples. beyond those noted in the case')

2. :v1any of the sen'ices for dual-career couples and parent employees arc provided hy Ltr~e cnrp(n<llinn~ that h~I\L' far greatL'r financial resource" than ~Illaller cOlllpanil·s. ILkntif: and disL'uss potL'ntial \\ays in \\ hieh a slllall cOlllpany's IlR!Vl function can ~lik\ Iall' thc challenge" facingelllplo\ees \\'ho are parenls and elllplovees with \\'nrking spouscs.

.j. Suppose that a dual-carecr couple invohes spouses who arc at different career stages. Docs this situation pose problems for the couple'? For the organization or organizations employing them') Discuss.

Sources: Originally wrillen by Kim Stewart and adapted from Kimberly Garts Crum (May 2005), "A Mother's Place," Today's Woman, p. 40; Rachel Connelly, Deborah DeGriH, and Rachel Willis (2004), Kids at Work (New York: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research); Patricia Sellers (August 5, 1996), "Women, Sex, and Power," Fortune, pp. 42-56; Kim Clark (August 5, 1996), "Women, Men, and Money," Fortune, pp 60-61; Veronica J. Schmidt and Norman A. Scott (August 1987), "Work and Family Life: A Delicate Balance," Personnel Administrator, pp. 40-46; Fern Schumer Chapman (February 16, 1987), "Executive Guilt: Who's Taking Care of the Children?" Fortune, pp, 30-37; Anostasic Toufexis (November 16, 1987), "Dual Careers, Doleful Dilemmas," Time, pp. 90; Irene Pave (December 16, 1985), "Move Me, Move My Spouse," Business Week, pp. 57, 60; Ronald F. Ribark (August 1987), "Mission Possible: Meeting Family Demands," Personnel Administrator, pp. 70-79; Lawrence Rout (May 28, 1980), "Pleasures and Problems Face Married Couples Hired by Some Firms," The Woll Street

Journal, pp. 1, 28.

Noh's 1. Michael Farr (2005). (J\"",.niglll Ca""er Choice: /)i,("o!'f!r liwr Ideal Joh in Jusl a f-l'\\' Hou,.,

(New York: JIST Works!.

2. Jeffrcy II. Gn:~enhaLl" ( I CJ~7). Cureel" jl/alli/genwlI! (Hinsdale. IL: Dryden). pp. 6 7.

3 Jam\:s S. Boks. Ho\\ ard W. (,ray. Heather Howard Donwfrio (Fall 200 I), "An Investigation into

the Inter-Relatinnship uf Family-Work Conflict and Work Satisfaction:' JouI"/1al o{Afwwgerial Issu('\. pp. J7(> 40.

4. Richard . Holies \2(07). lJ/(' :!008 11"11(1/ Color I, liJllr l'arl/chulf!:J (Berkeley. CA: Ten Speed Press!.

5. Planning for Retirement Infl1rmation found at http:,'\\ ww.metlife.comlApplications,Corporate WPSiCDA'Pagc(icnerator:O.l (,74.P 1941.00.htllll. accessed April 24. 200X.

6. James T. Shulla (20051. Business p"rforll/UJ/ce. Through Ll!wl Six Sigma: Linking Ih" A"n(JI'-/('dge /I,)/"kl'/: Th" 7in'h'" Pillars. alld 8aldridge (~c\\ York: ;\SQ Quality Presst.

7. Louis .I. Zaehary (2005). C,.{'luing .4 :'vfell!orin!!. Cul/ll,.e: Th" Orgalli:atioll.~ Guid" (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).

x. Ibid.

9. John C. Maxwell (200XI. .'lfell/o,.illg 101 (1\C\\ York: Thllma, Nelson).

10. Ibid.

f

)r the

It sex Ul111­i~1 rict 1<11 illn doye.: r was ,Ieged ;evere f evi­e that n that dence inated of its

d that hough lorida :Iuded lroffer ff was

issue ion of idenee :Iming aintifl nyan's nating

~e that lancial Irt that te step

Chapter 14 ((lI'~cr !'I(llining (111'/ f)('\'~!()fJII1(,1I1 465

Application Case 14-1

TIH' Dllal-( :al'(,(,J' Couple

America's workforce has in the past heen largely made up of the heads of traditional families- husbands who work as breadwinners \vhile wi\'es remain home to raise the chil­dren, However. today the "traditional family" represents less than 10 percent of all house­holds, Increasingly, both spouses arc launching careers and earning incomes, Dual-career couples fHlII account fill' 40 percent of the \\'llrUillTe (more thall 'il million emplll~cc~),

;llld their nllmhc'r, II ill ~lIh'lilIl[i,t1ly iIlUC;hC The ,itllatioll lll' [110 ,pOll~e" lIilh carccr~

th"l :lrl' blllh Ulll,idcrl'c! imp(lrt,lllt ha, IK'Cllmc ,olllcthing m"Il"gcr~ can't Igllllrc', :\~ mOI\: \\'omcn cnler the \\'llrkfllrL'c, dlial-L'aITcr cllllpics II ill bCUl111e" considcr"llon in decisioll~

about hiring, promolion, relocation, and job commitmeill. The advent of the dual-career couple pose" challenges for the working spouses and

for business, According to one survey of more than XOO dual-career couples by Catalysl. L'ouples cxperience a myriad of problems, most notably diffieultics with allocating time (the top-ranked complaint). finances, poor communication. and conflicts over housework, For couples with children. meeting the demands of career and family usually becomes the top concern, Studies indicate that dual-career families need (I) benefit plans that enable couples to have children without jeopardizing their careers: (2) more flexible work arrangements to help balance the demands of family and career: (3) freedom from anxieties about child care while at work: and (4) assistance from the employer in finding employment for the spouse when an employee relocates (this is a need for both parents and childless couples),

For businesses. the challenge lies in helping to ease the problems of dual-eareel' couples. especially those with children, According to a study commissioned hy FiJrlune magazine. organizations are losing productivity and employees because of the demands offamily life, The study found that among the 400 working parents surveyed, problems with child care were the most significant predictors of ahsenteeism and low productivity,

For example, 4I percent of those surveyed had taken at least one day off in the three months preceding the survey to handle family matters: 10 percent had taken from three to five days, (On a national scale, these figures amount to hundreds of millions of dollars in lost productivity.) Abollt 60 percent of the parents polled expressed concerns about time and attention given to their children, and these anxieties were linked to lower productiv­ity. Overall, many experts advise that companies lhal ignore lhe problems of dual-career couples and working parents stand to lose output and even valued employees, Companies arc beginning to respond to these needs in a number of ways,

Studies indicate that more employees are refusing relocation assignments if their working spouses cannot find acceptable jobs, In response, many companies have recently begun to otTer services for "trailing spouses" These services include arranging interviews with prospective employers, providing instruction in resume writing. interviewing, and contract negotiation, and even paying plane fares for job-hunting trips, Some companies (General Mills, 3M, American Express) use outside placement services to find jobs for trailing spouses, More than 150 companies in northern New Jersey created and usc a job bank that provides leads fer job-hunting spouses,

A small but growing number of companies (including Chase Manhattan Bank and O'Melveny & Myers. one of the nation's largest law firms) are breaking tradition and

466 Part Four J)e\'''/lif!;lIg 1/111111111 /(('IlillrCCl

hiring two-career couples. Martin Marietta maintains an affirmative hire-a-couple policy and hires about 100 couples a year at its Denver division. Proponents assert that coupl;s who work for the same company share the same goals, are often more committed to the company, and arc more willing to work longer hours. Hiring couples helps attract and keep top employees, and relocations are also easier for the couple and the company.

Prmidill~ Day-Can' .\:-iSistUIHT ( .

More than 10,000 companies now provide day-care services and financial assistance or referral services for child care. For example. American Savings and Loan Association established the Little Mavericks School of Learning in I<)83 for 150 children of employees on a site within walking distance of several of its satellite branch locations. This center was established as a nonprofit subsidiary with a staffof 35, and its services include regular day care. holiday care, sick-child care, Roy Scout and Girl Scout programs. a kindergarten program, and after-school classes. Fees range from SI35 to S235 a month, depending on the type of service. and parents pay through payroll deductions. Company olficials report that the center has substantially reduced absenteeism and personal phone calls and that it has been a substantial boon to recruitment and retention. However. as many couples have found, limited openings mean that not all parent employees can be served; and some employees get preferential treatment--sometimes even those who can afford external day­care services.

Many companies contract outside day-care services run by professional groups, thus relieving the company of the headaches ofrunning a center. For example, [BM contracted the Work/Family Directions child-carc consulting group to establish [6.000 home-based t~1I11ily centers and to open 3.000 day-care centers for [BM employees and other families throughout the United States. About 80 companies havc created programs to help parents of sick children. If a child of an employee of First Bank System (Minneapolis) becomes ill. the company will pay 75 percent of the bill for the child's stay at Chicken Soup. a sick­child day-care center. The policy enables parents to keep working and saves the company money. A growing number of companies arrange to send trained nurses to the sick child's home.

Other companies provide partial reimbursement for child-catT services. Zayre Corporation pays up to S20 a week for day-care services for employees who work at corporate headquarters. A growing number of cafeteria fringe benefits programs enable employees to allocate a portion of fringe benefits to pay for day-care services. Chemical Bank pays these bcnefits quarterly in pretax dollars.

1\ llulllber of compallies combine \acatioll alld sick lea\e to increase lile amoullt of time off for t~lmily life. At Hewlett-Packard. for example, employees receive their regular vaca­tion days plus five additional days of unused sick leave. Employees can take the time off in any increments at any time. Employees can earry a number of unused days over to tbe next year (the number is determined by tenure), and employees who leave the company receive eash value for their unused days (at their current salary level).

PI'm idill ~ .I () h S II iI rill ~ , ,

This program enables two people to share a job on a part-time basis and is <l major boon to spouses who want to continue their careers while raising children. The program was first established by Steelcase, Inc., in Grand Rapids. Michigan. where company otficials say that